ALTAF HUSSAIN vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE and others.
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which upheld the dismissal of the petitioner, an Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI), from police service. The petitioner was proceeded against departmentally for gross negligence following the escape of a hardened criminal, Gulzar Ahmad alias Gulzari, from his custody. The core legal question was whether the departmental dismissal was legally flawed, specifically whether it was improperly based solely on the registration of a criminal case against the petitioner for the escape. The Supreme Court held that the departmental authority had conducted an independent inquiry, and the penalty was imposed based on the petitioner's established responsibility for the escape, not merely the existence of a criminal case. The Tribunal correctly identified the petitioner's defense regarding the custody of the lock-up keys as an afterthought, as it was not raised in the initial reply to the show-cause notice. The Court affirmed that findings of fact by departmental authorities and the Service Tribunal, absent legal infirmity, do not warrant interference, as the petition raised no question of public importance.
- Can a departmental dismissal be invalidated solely because a criminal case was also registered against the delinquent official for the same incident?
- Is a plea raised for the first time before the Service Tribunal, which was not included in the reply to the show-cause notice, admissible as a valid defense?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with findings of fact recorded by departmental authorities and the Service Tribunal in the absence of legal infirmity?
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 353, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337/F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 382, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 13.20.65, Arms Ordinance
- Section 379, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 223, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 224, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.-- The petitioner who was ASI was proceeded against departmentally for misconduct on the following charges:- "You Altaf Hussain No.205 while posted at P.S. Midh Ranch did not perform your official duties in an appropriate manner that Gulzar Ahmad alias Gulzari s/o Malko, caste Ranch was P.O. In case FIR Nos. 221/89, 96/93, u/Ss. 307/353/148/149, PPC and 337/F of P.S. Midh Ranch. He was also P.O. In case FIR No.134/92, u/S. 302/382/148/149, PPC, P.S. Lalian, District Jhang. He was arrested by Hafizabad Police in case FIR No. 119/94, u/S. 13.20.65 Arms Ordinance on 13.4.1994. He was transferred from Hafizabad to P.S Lalian and finally shifted to Judicial custody in case FIR No.134/92 u/S. 302/382/148/149, PPC and confined in District Jail Jhang.
2. Gulzari was also wanted by P.S Kot Momen in case FIR 35/94, u/S. 379/411, PPC. SI Farhat Mahmood arrested him as P.O. Of his P.S. On 17.7.1994 at Jhang and shifted him in judicial custody at Jhang, after completing his investigation.
3. Subsequently, you got transferred the said desperado from District Jail Jhang to P.S. Midh Ranch on 4.8.1994. On 5.8.1994, you took out the criminal from Lock Up and sat (sic) him in your room at the P.S. Without putting hand-cuffs, who made good his escape. This all happened due to sheer gross negligence on your part, warranting disciplinary action against you.
4. Case FIR Nos. 83 and 84/94 under Sections 223/224, PPC was registered at P.S. Midh Ranch regarding escape of the above said hardened criminal".
2. It was found from the record that the petitioner took the custody of an accused person Gulzar Ahmad alias Gulzari who escaped from his custody for which he was responsible. In the reply to the show cause notice, the petitioner did not claim that the key of the lock up where the said accused was put was with one Masood Alam. He merely denied the charges. The departmental authority after considering the charges and perusing the record came to the conclusion that it was the petitioner who was responsible for the escape of under trial prisoner Gulzari, therefore, penalty of dismissal from service was imposed which was challenged by him through service appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal which has been dismissed through the impugned judgment dated 29.7.1999 against which leave is sought.
3. We have noticed that during the hearing of the appeal before the service Tribunal, the case made out by the petitioner was that the key of the lock up where the accused was lodged was with one Masood Alam. The Service Tribunal observed that this plea was never taken in reply to the show cause notice and was an after thought. The Tribunal also came to the conclusion that the Department had evidence with it i.e. They did not only proceed against the petitioner departmentally but had also got a case registered through FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that mere registration of criminal case was not sufficient to hold that charges in the departmental proceedings against the petitioner has been proved.
5. The argument has no force, for the petitioner has not been imposed penalty merely on the basis of a criminal case having been regiStered against him. Reference to registration of criminal case against the petitioner has been made only to highlight the position of the respondent-department.
They did not proceed against the petitioner departmentally merely on the ground that criminal case had been registered. The order of dismissal from service has been passed against the petitioner independently from the said act of registration of criminal case against him, therefore, it could not be argued that the order was based on the said criminal case only.
6. No question of law of public importance is involved in this case. The petitioner has brought before this court an individual grievance and the findings of facts recorded by the departmental authority and the Service Tribunal have not been shown to have suffered from any legal infirmity.
7. For the foregoing reasons, this petition has no merits which is accordingly dismissed and .